Roadway design generates whines

It’s been a real hoot watching how some of Worcester’s West Side residents have become so worked up over planned roadway improvements at the intersection of Salisbury and Forest streets.

Given some of their hyperbole, one gets the impression the apocalypse is going to arrive if the city goes ahead with the project.

We’re not talking about having an interstate highway built through that area. And, it’s nothing like the talk of several years ago about putting an airport access road through the southwest part of the city, razing homes and destroying neighborhoods in the process.

Heck, in the scheme of things, this project is pretty small and basic — it involves repaving the streets in the area of the intersection, and installing new sidewalk surfaces and pavement markings.

In addition, new road lines will provide a dedicated left-turn lane for traffic heading eastbound on Salisbury Street to enter Forest Street. Separated right- and left-turn lanes will also be created for traffic on Forest Street entering Salisbury Street.

The intent of the project is to alleviate the traffic bottleneck at Salisbury and Forest streets that frequently causes traffic congestion along that east-west corridor — something city officials have been trying to deal with since the late 1970s.

Robert L. Moylan Jr., commissioner of public works and parks, said the new design and improvements will reduce by 50 percent the waiting time that motorists have to spend to go through the intersection during peak traffic hours. More importantly, he said it will not require any land-takings, the loss of trees or street closures. All the work will be done within the street rights-of-way.

And the city will not be breaking the bank to do that work, either. The cost of the project is $191,000 — pocket change relatively speaking, given the city’s $541.8 million municipal budget.

Sounds pretty simple, right?

Not to several of the residents who live in the vicinity of the Salisbury/Forest intersection.

They see the creation of a left-hand turning lane on Salisbury Street and a left-hand turning lane on Forest Street as all but bringing civilization to an end in that part of the city, because they feel it will lead to more traffic passing through there.

One woman who testified at Tuesday night’s joint meeting of the City Council’s Public Works and Traffic and Parking committees said she believes the intersection improvements will have a “ripple effect of serious problems” because it will draw more traffic in that area.

“There’s no question that more cars will lead to an increase in noise pollution,” she said. “Also, there will be an increase in carcinogenic pollution from car exhaust, which will lead to more illnesses to people living in the area. More cars, ultimately there will be more accidents, to other cars and people. With the addition of more cars, there will be more litter. This is definitely going to create ultimately a crime area, no question; there’s a correlation between litter and crime.

“This project will lower property values and I believe decrease selling opportunities. It will cause a problem for people backing out of their driveways and also result in sleep disturbances and rob residents of their peace and tranquility of the area. More traffic, I believe, will lead to road rage and carelessness. Also, there will be more people speeding.

“There’ll be more long-term dissatisfaction among the residents, and I truly believe there will be more (traffic) congestion during rush hour because there’s going to be more traffic. I also believe this project will destroy the beautiful landscaping.”

Good grief!

Who would have ever thought that a little road project like this would lead to higher crime, disease, road rage, insomnia and lower property values among many other things? Kind of makes you want to assume the fetal position.

Meanwhile, a resident of nearby Military Road expressed concerns about how the project would impact the “ambience” in that part of the city. He went so far as to say that it could destroy one of Worcester’s last “lovely” areas.

“When you look at Salisbury Street as a first impression, let’s think about people who might want to come to Worcester, live in Worcester or those who might work in Worcester,” he said. “That’s a very lovely area. There aren’t many lovely areas left in Worcester, they’re really aren’t.

“If you drive to south Main Street, as people have said, it looks like a dump; it really does. I don’t think that taking what is a beautiful section of town, where people will formulate impressions and opinions regarding this town, serves justice to this city and to the residents who live there as well. The notion that adding these two additional lanes is going to alleviate that (traffic bottleneck) is pure fantasy. What it will do is encourage more traffic and you will still have a choke point.

“The real issue in my mind is what it does for our ambience up there. To draw the downtown of Worcester up into a residential area is folly, it really is, and I think you really ought to consider what this will mean to people’s perception. You should leave well enough alone.”

Then there is Luis G. DaRosa of 2 Forest St., the leader of the opposition. He is convinced there is more to the project than meets the eye because he does not feel there is a need for the roadway improvements at all.

“There is something further; there is something more than this,” he said. “I know no one is going to say anything, but there is another answer. Why are we going to make this change, which is going to change the character of the neighborhood and it’s going to change the peoples’ livelihood?”

Mr. DaRosa said he is concerned that the project is meant to take care of traffic coming from Holden, Princeton and Rutland, so those people can get to downtown Worcester quicker. He said the City Council should instead be looking after the interests of its taxpayers who live in the vicinity of the Salisbury/Forest intersection.

“Where is my do?” he asked the council. “Where’s my do as a taxpayer?”

But Joseph Pagano, who lives off Flagg Street, said opponents of the project are not looking at the value of the project beyond their own front yards. Indeed, one of the most repeated concerns raised by opponents of the project was how they would be able to get out of their driveways.

“(Mr. DeRosa) asked, where’s my do?” Mr. Pagano said. “I would raise the question: where is our do? As elected officials, (city councilors) are elected to consider the common good, the greater good. Roads, infrastructure and sidewalks go beyond my own sidewalk, my frontage, my trees and my driveway. You need to consider the collective whole.”